three main issues to investigate in order to fulfill its legislative mandate, which is found in House Resolution 222.

First: Who assassinated President Kennedy?

Second: Did Federal agencies perform adequately in the sharing of information prior to the assassination, in the protection of President Kennedy, and in their investigation of the assassination?

Third: Did the assassin or assassins have assistance; that is, was there a conspiracy?
In addressing these issues, the committee has made every effort to be fair and objective. As I said when the committee began its public hearing into the King assassination, we regard each of these issues to be equal in importance with the others. We are not, for example, more interested in conspiracy theories than in a balanced evaluation of agency performance. Moreover, while it is true that individual members of the committee may have reached some preliminary judgments on certain issues after many months of studying them, we are suspending judgment as a committee until all of the evidence is in.
This, then, brings me to a very important part of our assignment. We must, in the end, report our recommendations to the House of Representatives and to the American public. For this purpose, we have set aside a period in December to weigh the evidence in both the Kennedy case and the King case. Only then will we be ready to reach conclusions, make them public, and propose new legislation, if we deem it appropriate. It will be then, too, that we will write our final report.
These hearings now are designed to present and to assess the credibility of the evidence the investigation has developed. If, in the process, new leads are uncovered, we are also prepared to pursue them.
Now, I would like to spend a minute explaining the important difference between these hearings and a criminal trial. The distinction is a fairly subtle one, and it would be easy for people to become confused. I suspect that some did during our hearings into the possible involvement of James Earl Ray in the death of Dr. King. It is necessary to appreciate the differences in order to understand the nature of our work.
There are several characteristics of a trial that do not apply to these congressional hearings:

First, there is no defendant.

Second, there is no prosecutor.

Third, there is no specific burden of proof, no requirement to demonstrate anything beyond a reasonable doubt. And,

Fourth, there is no pending indictment.

Now, then, what are we doing here? This committee is evaluating evidence, and we are, in fact, willing to listen to evidence that some of our members may not ultimately be willing to credit. We want to examine all of the evidence, not just that which fits some predetermined mold. Unlike in a trial, we do not insist that evidence be vouched for in advance by either the staff or the committee.
Of course, a minimum test of credibility has been applied to evidence the staff presents, or the committee will permit to be publicly aired; that is to say, the committee will not listen to evidence that a reasonable person would dismiss out of hand. Indeed, that is the reason why the committee has examined much of the evidence it will receive in public session in executive session. We want a preliminary judgment of credibility. But the committee wants to be open minded. We want to be able to assess all of the key evidence on the relevant issues, leaving our ultimate decision to the public meetings to be held in December.
A further point. Those people who follow the hearings either in person or by way of the news media cannot expect each day's presentation to be self-contained. We may raise issues one day that cannot be resolved until testimony can be taken on a subsequent day. Indeed, certain issues may not be resolved at all, in the event some important evidence is not available to us or to anyone. Not all questions that can be asked can be answered.
It is also the intent of the committee to write a complete historic record, one designed to be read as a whole, when we have completed all of our work. It would be a mistake, therefore, for anyone to look for some sensation that makes a news headline each day that this committee meets. Those who do I am afraid will be disappointed. Indeed, some of our work may be dull, but necessary nevertheless. For one reason, we are not only concerned with the meaning of our work at this given moment, but hopefully for years ahead.
Today, and the rest of this week, we will address these subjects: One. The facts and circumstances surrounding President Kennedy's trip to Dallas on November 22, 1963; and, two, a scientific analysis of the facts of the President's death, including the autopsy performed on the President's body, the effect of the missiles that hit him, and other ballistics evidence.
To begin the first phase of our hearing, I would like to at this time recognize Congressman Richardson Preyer, my distinguished colleague from the State of North Carolina, who as chairman of the Kennedy subcommittee has indeed worked tirelessly many long hours with the members of his subcommittee in order to prepare for these hearings that will now unfold. It is my pleasure at this time to recognize my distinguished colleague, Judge Preyer.

Mr. PREYER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In the hearings to be conducted throughout the month of September on the assassination of President Kennedy, we intend to develop three general themes.
First, we will consider the life and death of President Kennedy and the involvement in that death, if any, of Lee Harvey Oswald. The emphasis here will be on hard evidence, much of it old evidence we will reexamine, though in some instances new evidence that has been turned up by the committee. In either case, we will be assisted in the effort by science and technology that wasn't readily available to investigative agencies in 1964.
Second, we will present an evaluation of the performance of Federal agencies whose assignments have been related to the assassination or the investigation that followed it. These include the Secret Service, the Federal Bureau of Investigation, Central Intelligence Agency, Department of Justice, and the Warren Commission.
Third, we will review conspiracy theories. some specious, some sinister, some inconsistent With one another. In this effort, we will take into account the climate for conspiracy in 1963, and we will closely examine the possible involvement of certain groups or forces that had the motive, opportunity, and means--all three elements being essential--to seek the President's death.
It must be emphasized that as yet the committee has reached no final judgment of the validity of these theories. Indeed, the committee has not reached an ultimate judgment on any of the issues posed in any of the areas I have mentioned. It is for this very reason that as these hearings progress, the committee will at times be considering bodies of evidence that point in mutually contradictory directions. As I have noted, Mr. Chairman, this is particularly true in the area of conspiracy.
Now, I would like to talk for a minute about the course of this investigation to date. The evidence about to be presented is the product of over a year of effort by the subcommittee and a staff of 40 attorneys, investigators, and researchers. They have spent many man-hours sorting out a voluminous 15-year accumulation of information, interviewing hundreds of witnesses and helping the subcommittee conduct hearings in executive session.
The staff and committee members have found it necessary to go on the road to pursue leads and gather data. Cities like Miami, New Orleans, and, of course, Dallas were visited often, and there were trips to foreign cities--Havana, Mexico City, Paris, Madrid. In all, there were 385 trips to 564 points, taking into account return visits, over a total of 1,807 days traveled.
As for witness interviews, 1,548 of them were conducted, and a total of 75 witnesses were questioned in executive session.
I should note, Mr. Chairman, that these figures are based on statistics compiled as of the end of the first 6 months of this year. Since the investigation is ongoing to the end of the year, they will be revised upward.
Mr. Chairman, I realize, while statistics don't always lie, they seldom voluntarily tell the truth and I am not offering these statistics as a measure of the success of the investigation, but I think it is some measure of the effort that has gone into it.
One important measure of that effort, however, is hard to pinpoint. It is the hundreds of agency files the staff reviewed. It combed through over 500 files from the CIA, FBI, Secret Service, Departments of State and Defense, and others. But a file can range from a few pages to thousands. To get an idea of the size of the task, one should realize that the FBI file on Lee Harvey Oswald alone consists of 238 volumes that in turn contain 5,754 serials.
Finally, we employed several consultants in areas of the investigation that required very specialized knowledge and training. A panel of medical experts, for example, studied the autopsy X-rays and photographs. The results of their work will be the subject of tomorrow's hearing.
There have been 44 consultants under contract--in such diverse fields as ballistics, photography, pathology, handwriting, polygraph analysis, and medical illustrations.
It has been a concerted effort, Mr. Chairman. Now comes the real test, as we assess the quality of the evidence in these hearings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Judge Preyer. Now, I am pleased to recognize my colleague from Ohio, the distinguished ranking minority member of this committee, who has worked untiringly as a member of this full committee and also of the Kennedy Subcommittee, for such remarks as he cares to make at this time. Mr. Devine.
Mr. DEVINE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Very briefly, I would like to point out that our investigation will not end with these public hearings at the end of this month, at which time we still will have 3 months of hard work to do. Important aspects of the investigation will continue as we fit the last pieces into the mosaic that we are making. We expect to interview additional witnesses, to meet in executive session, and to complete the task of writing our final report.
Much of the effort that remains has to do with resolving seemingly minor points. The alternative to doing this would be to allow gaps to go unanswered and to publish a report that lacks unity. If we did that, we would fail the tests that surely will be applied to the job we do--the test of professionalism and the test of craftsmanship.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman,
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, Mr. Devine. The Chair would like to announce that close to the hour of 10 a.m., it will be necessary for the chairman of the committee, the ranking minority member, Mr. Devine, the chairman of the two subcommittees, Mr. Preyer and Mr. Fauntroy, to leave these hearings and appear before the House Administration committee relative to the balance of the funding for this committee. So when we depart, it will be for that reason. Of course, we will return to the hearing as soon as our work before another congressional committee has been completed.
The Chair at this time recognizes general counsel of the committee, Professor Blakey.

NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As the committee begins its public hearings on the assassination of President Kennedy, it seems appropriate to reflect for a moment on the meaning of the life and death of our 35th President. Appropriate, because, as in the King assassination, ultimately this committee must face this question: Was the President's death unrelated to his life, a senseless act, or did it have meaning? To begin to understand his death, it is perhaps instructive to refresh our memories of his life, to go back to a cold January morning in 1961 when he stood before the Nation that had just elected him and voiced these memorable words:
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any prices, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty.No words that could be written now more aptly portray the determination of John F. Kennedy as he assumed office. An articulate, confident new President--his mettle was yet to be tested--he confronted the issues that would put him in conflict with awesome forces abroad and at home.
The war was his foremost concern, as the United States and the Soviet Union stood poised to obliterate each other--or to coexist. Kennedy had come down hard in the campaign on a need to bolster military might, a position he would amplify by tacking an extra $4 billion to the budget for defense that former President Eisenhower had approved.
There were, in fact, trouble spots in the world where the potential of hostilities was real, countries where the Communists were securing a foothold, including one only 90 miles away--Cuba.
Domestic issues had a potential for violence as well. There was racial turmoil in the South-freedom rides and sitins--and there was no way a man like John F. Kennedy would or could stand on the sidelines.
And there was the menace of organized crime. The Justice Department run by the President's brother, Robert F. Kennedy, was gearing for an all out drive on the mob which would include a concerted effort to send teamster President James Hoffa to prison.
The President's popularity was high--he came into office with a 69-percent approval rating in the Gallup Poll. But his policies both foreign and domestic were in for rough going. A trend against him, barely perceptible at first, was running in the country . On the international scene, Kennedy had scarcely been in office for a formative 100 days when disaster struck. After long deliberation, he approved the landing of an invasion force of anti-Castro exiles on the southern coast of Cuba; a place whose name would signify failure in American foreign policy for years to come. It was called Baya Cochinos, the Bay of Pigs.
Responsibility for the fiasco was accepted by Kennedy shortly after the exiles were defeated by Castro's troops and when the United States could no longer disavow its role in the ill-fated expedition. But privately he blamed the CIA, reportedly vowing to "splinter the agency into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
Kennedy was a war hero with combative instincts. He would not soon forget the Bay of Pigs easily, for it had raised questions about him as a coolheaded leader and opened him to the criticism of friend and foe alike. But he was not a man to back down. His military policy was to beef up conventional forces--more footsoldiers and planes and ships to transport them--and he ordered a maximum effort in training troops for guerrilla warfare.
When the release of Cubans captured at the Bay of Pigs had been negotiated by late 1962, Kennedy greeted them at the Orange Bowl in Miami with a defiant promise to return their flag to them in a free Cuba.
Kennedy went to Europe in May, and in Vienna he talked cold war politics with Khrushchev for 12 hours. Nuclear testing, disarmament, and Berlin were the topics of discussion, but there was no indication of agreement.
Khrushchev's hard line stand on Berlin became clear within a month of the meeting. He told the Western Powers to get out of the city by the end of the year, threatening to sign a separate peace treaty with East Germany, one that would give the East Germans control of western access routes and end four-power control of Berlin, called for in the Potsdam Agreement.
With Russian determination to eliminate West Berlin seemingly as avowed as the U.S. commitment to preserve it, the prospect for world war III was greater than ever.
True to form, Kennedy did not back down. In July, he made a stirring address to the Nation on the will to fight, and he backed it up with a call for 217,000 more men in uniform. He ordered the draft doubled and tripled, if necessary, and he requested authority to activate Reserve and National Guard units. "In meeting my responsibilities in these coming months," he told the American people, "I need your good will and your support and, above all, your prayers."
Meanwhile, Kennedy was determined not to be blindsighted in his own hemisphere. His Alliance for Progress was designed to wipe out the seedbed of communism in Latin America by raising living standards. Throughout the summer of 1961, the leaders of Central and South American countries were coming to Washington for their share of the billions of dollars the United States was paying to contain Castro.
As 1962 opened, Kennedy was wrestling with the nasty decision of whether to resume atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. The Russians had thrust it upon him by a series of surprise tests started the past September, despite an earlier promise by Khrushchev to join the United States in a no-test policy.
At the same time, the world's hotspots simmered:
In Berlin, Khrushchev had backed his threats by building the successive deadlines passed, Western rights remained intact.
In South Vietnam, Kennedy had decided to take a stand against Soviet inspired "wars of liberation.' He fortified this position by sending over 4,000 military specialists.
To add to international hazards, negotiations with the Russians on nuclear tests had stalled. So, in April, Kennedy made the agonizing decision to resume them, giving a go-ahead to a series of blasts over Christmas Island in the central Pacific. He told a writer it was his fate to "take arms against a sea of troubles and, by opposing, end them."
On a visit to Mexico in June, Kennedy was greeted with rousing enthusiasm that seemed to say his hemisphere policy was faring well. But then in October, he faced in Cuba a crisis of a dimension unparalleled during his brief Presidency. The world had not faced at any time before, nor has it since, a more immediate prospect for nuclear holocaust.
Kennedy had returned abruptly from a political trip to Chicago on October 20, using a sudden cold as a pretext for the surprise change in plans.
On Monday, the 22d, he revealed the real reason for the move-the United States had discovered from reconnaissance photographs that the Soviet Union had deployed ballistic missiles and jet bombers in Cuba. He announced he had ordered an air-sea quarantine on shipping into Cuba and promised more drastic action if the missiles and bombers were not removed.
It was a tense 5 days that led to a decision by Khrushchev to pull out his offensive hardware. Kennedy, for his part, agreed not to invade Cuba, and he lifted the blockade.
By the end of 1962, Khrushchev finally had come to realize that President Kennedy was not a toothless tiger. Kennedy, in turn, felt the momentum the Soviets had gained from the time they leaped out ahead in the space race had been braked by the outcome of the Cuban adventure, and he was satisfied that the foe in the Kremlin would be more cautious in the future.
Still there was an uneasiness over Cuba in 1963. The Soviet presence was symbolized by an attack of a Cuban Air Force Mig on an American shrimp boat. Some 17,000 Russian troops still occupied the country; 500 antiaircraft missiles plus a large quantity of other Soviet armaments were emplaced there.
But a thaw in the cold war was perceptible, a result of Kennedy's foreign policy strategy which emphasized inch-by-inch progress. On June 10, he said in his memorable American University speech, "Let us focus on a peace based not on a sudden revolution in human nature but on a gradual evolution of human institutions." He announced the United States, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union would begin work on a treaty to outlaw nuclear tests.
The Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, a major achievement of the Kennedy administration, was initiated in Moscow on August 5 and ratified by the U.S. Senate on September 4.
On the domestic scene, the Kennedy administration was most note worthy accomplishments were in Civil rights, though the President would not live to see the passage of legislation he proposed, the most far reaching since Reconstruction.
Violence erupted soon after Kennedy took the oath of office. In Alabama, in May 1961, the Congress on Racial Equality staged a series of freedom rides for the purpose of integrating buses and terminals. Through a long night of rioting in Montgomery, quelled only after troops had been called out, Atty. Gen. Robert F. Kennedy was on the phone counseling one of the leaders of the civil rights movement in the country, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The freedom rides ended when the protesters were arrested in Mississippi, but the point had been made. The Attorney General soon petitioned the Interstate Commerce Commission, which the following September adopted rules banning segregation on interstate buses and in terminals.
There was another civil rights storm in October 1962. James Meredith, a 29-year-old black student, had tried to enroll at the University of Mississippi but had been refused, despite the orders of Federal courts. The Kennedy administration led a step-by-step campaign to force compliance by the State, whose Governor was equally determined to defy the courts. When Meredith arrived at Ole Miss on a Sunday, he was accompanied by 300 U.S. marshals, but they were no match for an angry mob of 2,500 students and outside extremists. Just as Kennedy went on the air to ask for calm, the campus exploded, and it took Federal troops to restore the peace. But Meredith was successfully enrolled.
The civil rights summer of 1963 began in Birmingham, Ala., in April. There, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., led an all-out attack on what he called "the most segregated city in the United States." On May 3, the demonstrators were attacked by police dogs and doused with firehoses, and pictures of these brutal tactics led to a worldwide outcry. When calm was restored, the movement for equal rights had triumphed. Birmingham became a rallying cry in cities across the South, as well as in Chicago and New York.
Kennedy addressed the Nation on June 11 to win support for his civil rights bill which, among other things, guaranteed blacks the right to vote and access to public accommodations. "We are confronted primarily with a moral issue," he said. "The fires of frustration and discord are burning in every city, North and South, where legal remedies are not at hand."
The menace of organized crime was another dominant issue of the Kennedy years. The President had first encountered it when, as a Senator, he became a member of a new Select Committee on Labor Racketeering. Bob Kennedy was chief counsel of the Rackets Committee, and later, as Attorney General, he would become the President's surrogate in an unprecedented campaign against the forces of the underworld.
There were dramatic developments in the war on organized crime just before and after Kennedy came to the White House. A roundup of hoodlums in Apalachin, N.Y., in 1957--followed by an
abortive prosecution of many of the leaders--served to show how lackadaisical the Federal effort had been. Then the Senate testimony of Mafia member Joseph Valachi helped to catalyze a renewed emphasis on that effort.
More than anything, though, the personal zeal of the Kennedy brothers meant hard times for the mob--the roughest period in the history of the Department of Justice. The historian, Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., wrote in a recent book about Robert Kennedy that due to his pressure "the National Government took on organized crime as it had never done before."
Schlesinger observes:
In New York, Robert Morganthau, the Federal Attorney, successfully prosecuted one syndicate leader after another. The Patriarca gang in Rhode Island and the De Cavalcante gang in New Jersey were smashed. Convictions of racketeers by the Organized Crime Section and the Tax Division steadily increased--96 in 1961, 101 in 1962, 373 in 1963. So long as John Kennedy sat in the White House, giving his Attorney General absolute backing, the underworld knew that the heat was on.
Bob Kennedy directed his big guns at targets he had pinpointed when he was with the Rackets Committee. One in particular was the alliance of top labor leaders and racketeering figures, one that to him was personified in the character of Teamster President James R. Hoffa. "The pursuit of Hoffa," Schlesinger writes, "was an aspect of the war on organized crime."
He adds:
The relations between the Teamsters and the syndicates continued to grow. The FBI electronic microphone, planted from 1961 to 1964 in the office of Anthony Giacolone, a Detroit hood, revealed Hoffa's deep if wary involvement with the local mob. For national purposes a meeting place was Rancho La Costa Country Club near San Clemente, California, built with a $27 million loan from the Teamsters pension fund; its proprietor, Morris B. Dalitz, had emerged from the Detroit underworld to become a Las Vegas and Havana gambling figure. Here the Teamsters and the mob golfed and drank together. Here, they no doubt reflected that as long as John Kennedy was President, Robert Kennedy would be unassailable.
In the beginning, Kennedy was an extremely popular President. Ironically, his ratings were highest in the aftermath of the Bay of Pigs--a remarkable 83 percent in the Gallup Poll. But by the fall of 1963, the fateful fall of 1963, he had dipped by 24 points, and he had begun to have misgivings about the political implications. In October, Newsweek reported that the racial issue alone had cost him 3.5 million votes, adding that no Democrat in the White House had ever been so disliked in the South.
For several reasons--politics among them--Kennedy was an active traveler. His diplomatic missions abroad were interspersed by trips around the country. In June 1963, he was in Germany, Ireland, and Italy, and later that summer he toured the Western United States--North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Washington, Utah, Oregon, Nevada, and California.
Not only did Kennedy like to be on the go, but, almost recklessly, he resisted the protective measures the Secret Service sought to press upon him. He would not allow blaring sirens, and only once-in Chicago in March 1963--did he permit his limousine to be flanked by motorcycle policemen. He once told the special agent in charge of the White House detail he did not want agents riding on the rear of his car.
He was philosophic about the danger. During the Texas trip, he told his special White House assistant:
* * * if anybody really wanted to shoot the President, * * * it was not a very difficult job--all one had to do was get a high building some day with a telescopic rifle, and there was nothing anybody could do to defend against such an attempt.
There has been dispute over why Kennedy would risk traveling to Texas at a time when the South had been the scene of violent incidents stemming out of the civil rights controversy. Why Dallas, in particular, where only a month before Kennedy's scheduled arrival on November 22, Adlai Stevenson had been booed and spat upon?
Some say Kennedy went to shore up his own political standing in a State he had won by an eyelash in 1960. Others cite a need perceived by Kennedy to remedy a splintering of liberal and conservative fractions within the State Democratic organization. Most agree, however, it was political.
Kennedy was fond of motorcades, because they afforded him an opportunity to get close to people. He made a special point of riding in one in Dallas on November 22, 1963, for he felt it would be his one chance that day to greet working people and members of minority groups.
In fact, it was his last chance.
Mr. Chairman, the witnesses we would like, with your permission, to call at this time are Mr. and Mrs. John B. Connally, who were riding in the limousine with President and Mrs. Kennedy at the time of the assassination. Wounded in the back, chest, wrist, and thigh by rifle fire, Governor Connally was rushed to Park Land Hospital where, though first listed in critical condition, he eventually recovered.
Mr. Connally was an administrative assistant to Senator Lyndon B. Johnson, and he served as Secretary of the Navy in the Kennedy administration. He was Governor of Texas from 1963 to 1969 .and Secretary of the Treasury in the Nixon administration in 1971 and 1972. He was special advisor to President Nixon in 1973. He is presently with the Houston law firm of Vinson, Elkins, Searls, Connally & Smith.
It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Mr. and Mrs. Connally.
Chairman STOKES. The Chair calls Governor and Mrs. Connally.
Governor, would you and Mrs. Connally stand and be sworn. Please, raise your right hands.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mrs. CONNALLY. I do.
Mr. CONNALLY. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated.
Governor and Mrs. Connally, on behalf of the Select Committee on Assassinations, I want to extend to you our most sincere appreciation for your appearance during the beginning of these public hearings.
Our mandate from the U.S. House of Representatives requires this committee to investigate all of the facts and circumstances surrounding the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. As
you are well aware, this tragic and shocking event occurred during the President's visit to Dallas, Tex. Indeed, you, yourself, Governor Connally, were critically wounded during the barrage of gunfire. The President was visiting the fourth of a five-city visit on an appearance schedule that you were instrumental in planning.
The President had come to Texas at your invitation and you were his official host. Accordingly, to begin our inquiry into this area, we considered it appropriate to request your appearance to give testimony on the facts and circumstances surrounding President Kennedy's decision to visit Texas.
Your testimony should cover all of the subsequent events that occurred as well as the course of preparations and any considerations involved therein.
In addition, it will include all decisions leading up to the President appearing in the Dallas motorcade on a route through an area the world has so tragically come to remember as Dealey Plaza and the building known as the Texas School Book Depository.
At this time, I will ask your indulgence in our being excused and I will, at this time, ask my distinguished colleague from Connecticut, Mr. Dodd, to assume the chair.
Mr. DODD. At this time, I will ask Mr. Gary Cornwell, who is the deputy chief counsel for the Kennedy investigation, to ask you some questions, Governor and Mrs. Connally. Again, we appreciate your appearance here today.

JFK EXHIBIT F-17
FACSIMILE
THE DALLAS MORNING NEWS
DALLAS, TEXAS, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 1963
(Front Page)
DALLAS INCLUDED
KENNEDY TO VISIT TEXAS NOV. 21-22
By Robert E. Baskin
News Staff Writer
JACKSON HOLE, Wyo. - White House sources told The Dallas News exclusively Wednesday night that President Kennedy will visit Texas Nov. 21 and 22.
The visit will embrace major cities of the state, including Dallas.
Kennedy is currently on a tour of the Midwest and West. The White House sources said the Texas trip Would be political, although they did not reveal the particular political mission.
The final White House decision to make the trip to Texas came late Tuesday night, these sources said.
Although specific details have not been worked out, it was considered likely that the President will visit Dallas, Houston, San Antonio and Fort Worth.
There has been speculation for some time that the President was contemplating a visit to Texas, but the final decision has just been reached, The News learned. It has been known that numerous Texas Democratic leaders have urged Kennedy to come to the state to repair what they regard as a deteriorating party situation.
The presidential decision may have been prompted by what he has seen on his current tour: a strong trend toward conservation and Republicanism in the Western states. He is believed to feel that he must cope with this situation in preparation for the 1964 campaign.
Earlier Wednesday at Billings, Mont., Kennedy recaptured his old campaign oratory in his best-received appearance in two days of intensive, "nonpolitical" campaigning across the country.
In a straight-forward, rather far-reaching address to some 15,000 persons, Kennedy gave a resounding vote of confidence to Montana's veteran Mike Mansfield, Senate Democratic leader, and won cheers when he explained why he sought the nuclear test ban pact.
And he was obviously in high spirits as a result of the House's approval of the tax cut bill, news of which reached him just before he began his talk.
For the first time since he left Washington. he was applauded in the course of a speech. The subjects that won him applause, however, had nothing to do with conservation the announced reason for his il-state tour. Foreign affairs got him his best hand.
Kennedy said Mansfield, up for re-election in 1964, was responsible for ratification of the test ban treaty Tuesday. He added that Senate GOP leader Everett M. Dirksen, Ill., had been helpful.
He recalled his confrontations with Soviet Premier Nikita S. Khrushchev in 1961 and 1962 and how war has been avoided.
"What we hope to do," the President said, "is to lessen the chance of a military collision between these two great powers which together have the power to kill 300 million people in a day. That is why I support the test ban treaty."
From Billings the President flew on to Jackson Hole for an overnight stop.
Earlier in the day at Cheyenne, Wyo., Kennedy claimed that his New Frontier administration "has been able to make a start at getting our country moving again."
Mr. CORNWELL. Mr. Chairman, at this time, I think I might suggest to you we take a brief break and set up a projector and then show a film of the motorcade, which has been marked "JFK F-8."
Chairman STOKES. So ordered.
At this time, we will take a brief break to set up the film portion.

[A brief recess was taken.]

Chairman STOKES. If everyone would take their seats again, the committee is ready to resume its sitting.
I also ask that the lights be dimmed at this time. The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey for a narration and presentation of the film.
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would note initially that this is a copyrighted film.

[At this point, a film began to be shown as Mr. Blakey described the events portrayed in it.]

Mr. BLAKEY. November 22, 1963, 11:40 a.m., central standard time.
President and Mrs. Kennedy arrive at Love Field, Dallas, on Air Force One after a brief flight from Fort Worth.
It is a bright, sunshiny day, though it had been raining earlier. The President and First Lady greet well-wishers at Love Field.
Then, they join Gov. John B. Connally of Texas, and his wife Nelly.
The Kennedys and Connallys get into the open Presidential limousine for the trip to the city. Plans to have the Presidential party enclosed in the limousine's bubble-top were abandoned when the rain stopped.
There is no need for top coats or hats; the temperature is 68. Destination the International Trade Mart where the President is to deliver a luncheon address to an audience of businessmen. This is the last leg of the swing through Texas.
Yesterday, the Presidential party visited San Antonio and Houston. Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson is riding in the limousine behind the President, along with Texas Senator Ralph Yarborough. The motorcade left Love Field shortly after 11:50 a.m.
The crowds that line the route get thicker as it reaches the business district of the city.
Main Street: The motorcade is approaching Dealey Plaza, an area where open lawns are surrounded by express highways and tall buildings. At the corner of Main and Houston, the motorcade makes a sharp 90 turn to the right and heads north for one block.
The Texas School Book Depository is directly in front of the Presidential limousine. The book depository isn't shown. It is located to the immediate left of the picture.
As the limousine approaches the intersection of Houston and Elm Streets, Mrs. Connally, as she indicated, elated by the reception, says, "Mr. President, you can't say Dallas doesn't love you." The President replies, "That's obvious."
At Elm Street, the limousine makes a hairpin turn to the left and heads west passing the book depository. The film shows police motorcycles leading the limousine as it goes by the depository. The building in the background is the book depository. The window at the extreme right at the top of the picture is the one where earlier investigations have concluded Lee Harvey Oswald is located at this moment. It is about 12:30 p.m.
As the President waves to the crowds, shots ring out, the President and Governor Connally are wounded. The President is struck in the head. The limousine speeds up heading for the Stemmons Freeway. Its destination is now Parkland Memorial Hospital.
At approximately 1 p.m., the President will be pronounced dead.
Chairman STOKES. May we have the lights back, please.
The Chair recognizes Mr. Cornwell, counsel for the committee.
[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., the afternoon of the same day.]

AFTERNOON SESSION

Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. The Chair, at this time, recognizes Professor Blakey.
NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Warren Commission, for the most part, conducted its investigation in executive sessions, just as this committee has. But unlike this committee is doing today, the Warren Commission did not hold extensive public hearings. It published an account of its findings and how they were arrived at in a report, with 26 volumes of backup material. The Commission then went out of existence, and it has remained officially silent since.
In the 14 years that have followed, the investigation of the Kennedy assassination has become the subject of literally thousands of works of critical commentary. No official response has been forthcoming, since the Commission was no longer in being.
For these reasons as much as any, the American public has found it difficult to credit the conclusions of the Commission. Indeed, the select committee probably owes its very existence to the process by which the critics raised issues by questioning the work of the Commission.
The critical community is composed of writers and researchers, who, for years, have been examining the Warren Commission's work, perceiving some important issues that either were not addressed or were resolved, in the researchers judgment, inadequately. Some of the critics have acted reasonably and responsibly, motivated by an honest desire to find facts; others seem to have been impelled by a desire to capitalize on a sensational event, the murder of a President.
The select committee has attempted to derive maximum benefit from the work of all of the critics. In September 1977, several of them were invited to a conference in Washington to present to the committee their opinions of what issues should be addressed in the investigation. The committee profited greatly from their views.
Robert Groden, a photo-optical technician, has been one of the most active Kennedy assassination researchers. For the past 13 years, he has been analyzing the photographic evidence, and the results of his study played no small part in convincing many Members of the Congress that the Kennedy case should be reopened.
Since the committee was established, Mr. Groden has served as a consultant to it, advising the committee on issues raised by the photographic evidence.
Groden, 32, has given numerous lectures on his photo analyses, and his enhanced version of the Zapruder film, in part, witnessed this morning, has been widely shown publicly, including on ABC network. He is the author of "JFK: The Case for Conspiracy." He lives in New Jersey with his wife and two children. Mr. Groden is in a unique position to present to the committee the state of the knowledge of the critical community prior to the work of the committee and to articulate for it and the American people the crucial issues raised by the critical community, particularly as they were rooted in the photos available of the assassination.
Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to call Mr. Groden.
Chairman STOKES. The committee now calls Mr. Groden.
Sir, will you stand and raise your right hand to be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. GRODEN. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated.

Chairman STOKES. There being nothing further, the committee is adjourned until 9 a.m. tomorrow morning.
[Whereupon, at 4:20 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 9 a.m., Thursday, September 7, 1978.]

Chairman STOKES. A quorum being present, the committee will now come to order.
The Chair recognizes the chief counsel, Professor Blakey.

NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
John F. Kennedy was the fourth American President to be asssassinated, the first in 60 years. It is somewhat remarkable, therefore, that despite major advances in medical technology, his autopsy created the most controversy, though in two earlier murders there was a dispute over the fine points of the post mortem examination.
In Lincoln's case in 1865, the autopsy surgeons disagreed over the path of the bullet through the President's head. X-ray techniques that could have settled the question had not yet been invented.
Ironically, when William McKinley was shot in 1901, his wife ordered the autopsy terminated before the fatal bullet could be located, and although X-ray equipment was available--Thomas Edison had sent his newly invented machine to the pathologists--it wasn't used.
The one assassination not to raise an autopsy controversy was that of James Garfield in 1881.
The handling of President Kennedy's treatment and autopsy-first in Texas and then in Washington--by the doctors, the Warren Commission, asked by the President's family, has given rise to more his assassination than any other single questions touching on aspect of the investigation. The facts of what happened and the questions that have arisen out of those facts merit the closest attention.
The first doctors to attend the President at Parkland Hospital were Malcolm Perry and Charles J. Carrico. According to each, they observed a massive head wound and a small, circular wound in the neck just below the Adam's apple. Later, they referred to it as an "entry wound." Dr. Perry performed a tracheotomy to help the President breathe. The incision was made at the throat wound, making it subsequently difficult to determine the nature of the wound or even to notice its existence.
Other Parkland doctors have differed dramatically in their descriptions of the head wound. Dr. Robert McClelland, in a written report dated November 22, 1963, described it as "a massive head and brain injury from a gunshot wound of the left temple." Dr. William Kemp Clark said he observed a large gaping hole in the rear of the President's head.
The Parkland doctors worked on the President for about 20 minutes. They did not examine his back, so they could not have been aware of a wound there. The only head wound they say they saw was the massive one they described. Their job, of course, was to administer emergency treatment, not to measure the location of wounds or to determine that all wounds had been accounted for. The Parkland doctors' duties extended only up until the time of the death of the President.
Efforts to save the President were futile; Dr. Clark pronounced him dead at 1 p.m., central standard time. It was a formality. The President was beyond help before he arrived at the hospital.
The doctors who examined Governor Connally were Robert Shaw, Charles Gregory, and George Shires. They described the wounds to his back, chest, wrist, and thigh. The Governor, at first listed as critical, fully recovered.
After the President was declared dead, his body was taken to Air Force One for the flight back to Washington. On the return flight, Mrs. Kennedy decided to have the autopsy performed at Bethesda Naval Hospital, since the President had served in the Navy. Comdr. James J. Humes was appointed chief autopsy surgeon. He, in turn, chose Drs. J. Thornton Boswell and Pierre A. Finck to assist him. The autopsy began at 8 p.m. eastern standard time. Other doctors, laboratory technicians, Secret Service and FBI agents and military personnel were in attendance. Members of the Kennedy family and friends remained in the tower suite of the hospital.
Preliminary X-rays failed to detect the presence of a missile in the President's body. Commander Humes was then given authority to conduct a full autopsy by Adm. Calvin B. Galloway and Dr. George Burkley, the White House physician.
Dr. Humes first determined that a missile had entered the rear of the head and exited at the top right side of the skull, resulting in a large exit wound and leaving tiny metallic particles throughout the brain.
Next, he found a wound he determined had entered the upper back. Pathologists tried to probe this wound, but they could only detect a pathway that extended a few inches. They could not find a point of exit. Despite the uncertainty over the missile track, Dr. Humes decided not to dissect the track through the neck.
At about this time, Dr. Humes was informed by FBI agents that a bullet had been discovered on a stretcher in the emergency room at Parkland. He and the other pathologists tentatively decided the bullet had penetrated a few inches into the President's back and had been dislodged during emergency treatment at the hospital.
During the autopsy, pieces of bone discovered in the Presidential limousine were brought to Bethesda, where they were determined to have been part of the President's skull.
Dr. Humes made note of the tracheotomy incision. The pathologists examined most major organs of the President's body. X-rays and photographs were taken. The brain was retained for future examination; slides were extracted from tissue organs and sections. The autopsy ended at about 11 p.m. eastern standard time.
On the morning of Saturday, November 23, Dr. Humes spoke by telephone with Dr. Perry in Dallas, who explained that he had made the tracheotomy incision through a small, circular throat wound. Dr. Humes then theorized it was an exit corresponding to the entry wound in the upper back, and he reflected this belief in his autopsy report filed November 24.
All participants in the autopsy were under naval orders--not lifted until the select committee began its investigation--to be silent as to its results, but rumors began to fly anyway, and confusing news accounts soon began to appear. The effect of these erroneous news accounts on public perceptions is important to emphasize. Here is a sampling from the New York Times:
November 23: The President suffered an entrance wound in the Adam's apple and a massive head wound in the head.
December 17: The FBI had concluded one bullet had struck the President in the right temple and another had hit where the right shoulder joins the neck.
December 19: The pathologists had determined a bullet had lodged in the back, a second had struck the right rear of the head.
J. Edgar Hoover, the Director of the FBI, submitted the Bureau's report of the assassination to the Warren Commission on December 9, and a supplement to it was filed on January 13, 1964. They reflected the preliminary observations of the FBI agents, who had attended the autopsy.
By early February, the theory that one bullet had traversed President Kennedy s back and throat wounds and caused Governor Connally's wounds--the so-called single bullet theory--began to emerge. At this time, and for several months to come, members of the Warren Commission and its staff were taking testimony from the doctors who had attended the President and who had participated in the autopsy. The Warren Commission and its staff had also viewed the Zapruder film. As far as is known, however, no member of the Commission, or its staff, ever carefully examined the autopsy X-rays or photos, although Chief Justice Warren is reported to have seem them.
In September 1964, the Warren Commission issued its report, in which it concluded the President had been struck by two bullets, one in the back and one in the rear of the skull, as the autopsy report had indicated. Although it used carefully guarded language,
the Commission concluded that the bullet that exited the President's throat also caused all of Governor Connally's wounds.
Finally, the Commission said the bullet that was found on the stretcher at Parkland Hospital was the one that hit both the President and Governor Connally. This bullet, known by its exhibit number, CE-399, has come to be known as the pristine bullet.
Not long after publication of the Warren report, criticisms of its findings began to appear. In 1966, Edward Jay Epstein, in Inquest, revealed that the FBI report of December 9, 1963, stated that the missile that entered the President's back did not exit--this, in spite of the fact that the FBI had access to Dr. Humes' written report indicating otherwise.
In addition, in 1966, Mark Lane published his "Rush to Judgment." He quoted the early comments of several doctors at Parkland, in which they described the throat wound "as one of entry." Lane then argued that if the President was hit both from the front and back, there had to be more than one assassin. Lane also criticized the "single bullet" theory, suggesting that it had been devised by the Warren Commission to explain how one assassin could have inflicted all the wounds in the requisite time period.
As the "single bullet" theory fell, so, argued Lane, the specter of two gunmen rose.
In 1967, Josiah Thompson, in "Six Seconds in Dallas," proposed that the President had been struck simultaneously by two shots, one from the rear and one from the front.
In October 1966, the autopsy materials, which had been, up until that time, retained by the Kennedy family, were transferred to the custody of the National Archives under a restrictive deed of gift that sharply limited public access to them. In November 1966, the autopsy pathologists were asked by the Department of Justice to review the X-rays and photographs. This was the first time they had ever reviewed the photographs. Nevertheless, they concluded they were consistent with their original autopsy findings.
In 1968, Acting Attorney General Ramsey Clark convened a panel of medical experts for the purpose of making an independent review of the X-rays and photos. The panel confirmed the autopsy findings as to the number of wounds and the general direction from which the shots came, but it differed with the pathologists at Bethesda on one important point: it said that the wound in the rear or the President's head was 10 centimeters above where it had been placed by the autopsy.
In 1975, the Rockefeller Commission asked still another panel of experts to review the photographic evidence. The findings concurred with those of the panel appointed by Clark.
In 1976, the select committee was, of course, charged by the House of Representatives to undertake its investigation into the assassination of President Kennedy. The committee recognized that it, too, was obligated to examine all of the medical issues that had arisen over the years.
They include: (1) The number of bullets that struck President Kennedy and Governor Connally; (2) the number of wounds each man received, their locations and whether they were wounds of entry of exit; (3) the 10-centimeter discrepancy in the location of the wound to the rear of the President's head; (4) the course of the so-called pristine bullet through both President Kennedy and Governor Connally; (5) the apparent backward motion of the President's head, as shown in the Zapruder film, as he is hit by the fatal bullet; (6) the possibility that the President was struck in both the rear and the front of the head; (7) the statements of the Parkland doctors concerning President Kennedy's wounds; (8) the authenticity of the autopsy X-rays and photographs; (9) the competence and the validity of the autopsy, including an allegation that the pathologists were ordered to perform an incomplete examination.
The committee has convened a panal of forensic pathologists to evaluate and interpret the medical evidence. It consists of two groups of doctors--one that had previously reviewed the autopsy photographs and X-rays and one that had not.
Panel members who had previously reviewed the evidence are: Dr. Werner Spitz, medical examiner of Detroit, Mich., Dr. Cyril H. Wecht, coroner of Allegheny County, Pa.
Dr. James T. Weston, chief medical investigator, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, N. Mex.
Panel members who had not previously reviewed the evidence are:

The moderator of the panel is Dr. Michael M. Baden, chief medical examiner of New York City.
The panel was asked by the committee to undertake four fundamental assignments:
One, to determine whether there are basic conclusions in the field of forensic pathology on which most, or all, of the panel members could agree.
Two, to perform a detailed critique of the autopsy of President Kennedy.
Three, to write a report of its findings.
Four, to make recommendations for pursuing matters outside the expertise of forensic pathologists.
The committee has arranged to have the two groups of medical experts express their views in a single report with the stipulation that, should any member hold a dissenting opinion, it would be stated in the body of the report.
The committee has also conducted a comprehensive investigation in an attempt to locate missing materials, that is, materials missing from the National Archives, including a steel container alleged to have contained the President's brain which was removed during the autopsy.
All persons, either directly or indirectly, involved in the chain of custody of the autopsy materials have been either interviewed or deposed. The total number of persons interviewed or deposed exceeds 30. The committee has also contacted the Kennedy family.
Despite these efforts, the committee has not been able to determine what precisely happened to the missing materials. A family spokesman, however, did indicate that Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy expressed concern that these materials could conceivably be placed on public display many years from then and that he wished to prevent it.
The spokesman indicated that in his judgment, the materials were destroyed and cannot be recovered. The committee has determined that the materials were not buried with the body of the President at reinterment. The committee has not obtained any other relevant information on this issue.
To illustrate the location of the wounds in the President, the committee has engaged Ms. Ida Dox, an experienced medical illustrator, to render drawings. Ms. Dox graduated from the Johns Hopkins Medical School, Department of Art as applied to Medicine.
Presently, she is the medical illustrator for the Department of Medical-Dental Communication at the Georgetown University Schools of Medicine and Dentistry.
Mr. Chairman, it will be appropriate now to call Ms. Dox.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Ms. Dox as a witness. Would you stand, please, and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Ms. DOX. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated.
The Chair recognizes staff counsel, Donald A. Purdy, Jr. for questioning of the witness.

NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The committee also asked Dr. Lowell Levine to determine whether the autopsy X-rays were, in fact, those of President Kennedy.
Dr. Levine received his DDS degree from the New York University College of Dentistry in 1963.
Dr. Levine has been in charge of identification of a large number of mass disasters, both in the United States and abroad. He has published innumerable professional papers. In addition to Dr. Levine, the committee asked Mr. Calvin S. McCamy to determine whether the autopsy photographs are, in fact, the original, unmodified autopsy photographs of President Kennedy.
Mr. McCamy received a BS degree in chemical engineering and an MS degree in physics from the University of Minnesota. Mr. McCamy is a fellow of the Optical Society of America, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers and the Society of Photographic Scientists and Engineers. It would now be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, to call both Dr. Levine and Mr. McCamy to testify as a panel on the authenticity of the X-ray and the photographs.
Chairman STOKES. At this time, then, the committee calls Dr. Levine and Mr. McCamy as witnesses.
Gentlemen, would you stand and raise your right hands and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. McCAMY. I do.
Dr. LEVINE. Yes sir; I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated.
The Chair recognizes staff counsel, Mr. Donald A Purdy, Jr.
Mr. PURDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Gentlemen, I will begin the questioning with Dr. Levine.

The Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Mr. Chairman, of those doctors involved in either the original autopsy or subsequent reviews of it, the committee has available to it today or tomorrow Dr. Baden, Captain Humes, Dr. Wecht, and Dr. Petty. Dr. Baden re- ceived an M.D. degree from New York University School of Medicine in 1959 and completed his residency in pathology at Bellevue Hospital in 1964. He is, of
course, the chairman of the committee's panel reviewing the autopsy. It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Dr. Baden.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Dr. Baden. Dr. Baden, would you raise your right hand, please?
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Dr. BADEN. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated.
Before I recognize counsel. Dr. Baden, I understand you will be giving testimony relative to illustrated photographs.

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, our next witness, Capt. James J. Humes, received an M.D. degree from Jefferson Medical College in 1948 and completed his residency in pathology at the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology in 1956.
Captain Humes became the chief of anatomic pathology at the National Naval Medical Center in Bethesda. Md. in 1960. He became the director of the laboratories at the National Medical Center in 1961.
In that capacity, he conducted an autopsy of President Kennedy. In 1965, he attained the rank of Captain and he retired from the. Navy with that rank in 1967.
Currently, he is a clinical professor of pathology at Wayne State University School of Medicine and director of laboratories and vice president of medical affair at St. John Hospital in Detroit.
It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Captain Humes.
Chairman Stokes. Captain Humes, will you please stand and be sworn. Raise your right hand.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Dr. Humes. I do.

NARRATION BY G. ROBERT BLAKEY, CHIEF COUNSEL AND STAFF DIRECTOR
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our next witness, the one dissenting member of the autopsy panel, Dr. Cyril Wecht, received an M.D. degree from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine in 1956 and an L. B. from the University of Maryland School of Law in 1962, and a J.D. from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1962.
Dr. Wecht currently serves as coroner of Allegheny County, Pa. He holds numerous editorial positions on the boards of medical and legal publications, and he has written on a wide variety of medical and legal subjects, and in particular, the assassination of President Kennedy.
It would be appropriate at this time, Mr. Chairman, to call Dr. Wecht.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Dr. Wecht.
Will you please stand and raise your right hand to be sworn? You solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God,
Dr. WECHT. I do.

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The last witness to be called on the general question of the autopsy is Dr. Charles S. Petty. Dr. Petty received a M.D. degree cum laude from Harvard Medical School in 1950 and completed his residency in pathology in 1955 at New England Deaconess Hospital in Boston. Dr. Petty is certified in the areas of pathological anatomy, clinical pathology, and forensic pathology by the American Board of Pathology. He is a fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Science, the American Association of Pathologists
the American Society of Clinical Pathologists, and the College of American Pathologists.
It would be appropriate now, Mr. Chairman, to call Dr. Petty. Chairman STOKES. The committee at this time calls Dr. Petty. Doctor, would you stand and raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, so far this week, the committee has heard testimony relating to President Kennedy's trip to Texas, the nature and extent of his wounds as well as those inflicted on Governor Connally, the number of bullets that struck President Kennedy and the direction from which they were fired.
For the rest of today, testimony will be taken from experts in the general field of ballistics, specifically including: One, an expert in wounds ballistics, or the science of bullet effects on the human body; two, a panel of experts in firearms analysis; and, three, an expert in neutron activation analysis, which is a method of analyzing bullet or other samples for their trace element characteristics, which makes possible conclusions about the probability of common origins.
It may be helpful before hearing from these experts, however, to review or to set out several of the issues that the committee will be examining today.
First, what is the validity of the single bullet theory? That is, did the slightly damaged bullet that was recovered and marked by the Warren Commission as exhibit 399 traverse the President's neck and cause all of Governor Connally's wounds?
Second, what is the best explanation for the apparent rearward movement of the President's head at the time of the fatal shot, as it is portrayed in the Zapruder film.
Third, what are we able to determine about the rifle found on the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository and identified as the one used to assassinate President Kennedy, as well as the revolver found at the scene of the murder of Dallas police officer J.D. Tippit?
Finally, what can our firearms experts tell us about the bullets fired in the Kennedy assassination and the Tippit murder in terms of type, number of bullets fired on, and so forth?
Since the turn of the century, when it first became possible to photograph bullets in flight, scientists have been collecting data on the trajectory and stability in flight of bullets. A highly specialized area in this general field of ballistics has been developed in recent years. It is a science of what occurs to a bullet when it strikes, enters, and traverses a human body. It is called wounds ballistics and there are two important aspects of it here.
First, the determination of the factors involved in the potential of a projectile to cause injury, namely, its velocity, shape, momentum, energy and power; and second, the determination of the nature of the damage to tissues as a result of a projectile striking a human body.
The Warren Commission ordered wounds ballistics experiments in an effort to determine if the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally could have been caused by the MannlicherCarcano rifle allegedly found in the book depository.
The tests were conducted by the Wounds Ballistics Branch of the U.S. Army Chemical Research and Development Laboratories at Edgewood Arsenal, Md. The Army measured the penetrating power and flight stability of the bullets fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano and it simulated the wounds to President Kennedy and Governor Connally by shooting anesthesized goats and materials that replicate the human body.
In part, as a result of these tests, the Commission concluded: One, that Governor Connally's wounds were caused by one bullet and that the bullet that traversed the President's neck probably then proceeded to inflict all of the wounds to Governor Connally.
Two, that a bullet fired from the Mannlicher-Carcano rifle at a distance of approximately 270 feet would cause a wound similar to the wound discovered in the President's head.
The committee has analyzed the reports of the tests at Edgewood. It also considered having a series of its own tests conducted. Rather than ask the Army to do additional experiments, it solicited a proposal from a private contractor, H.P. White Laboratory of Bel Air, Md. The company expressed its professional view that efforts to replicate the assassination would always be subject to theoretical questioning, since no material reacts in the exact manner of live human tissue when fired into.
Moreover, it is impractical to expect to be able to recreate Commission exhibit 399 by shooting bullets through a series of various substitute materials, such as gelatin blocks and bone fragments.
The main reason was the extreme unpredictability of the yaw motion of a bullet in flight as it traverses, exits, and re-enters a series of targets. The company, nevertheless, did propose shooting through smooth bore rifles in a series of tests estimated to cost in the first series, $20,000, but it was not at all optimistic about exactly reproducing what occurred in Dallas. Indeed, the company indicated that the number of shots required to produce the chance result of Commission exhibit 399 could range from one up to infinity.
The committee discussed the proposal with Mr. Larry Sturdivan, a wounds ballistics expert employed by the Army, and it got advice from a specialist in scientific methodology, Dr. Gerald Gordon. The decision was made not to undertake expensive and perhaps useless further testing for the following reasons: Results of the tests with materials other than human bodies could always be theoretically questioned by those who would quarrel with its results.
Two, the number of shots to obtain a statistical sample could not be reasonably determined.
This next point is perhaps subtle but it is nonetheless important and I might add it is one often misunderstood by laymen, such as myself. It is an example, I think, of what Chairman Preyer indicated yesterday about commonsense.
The scientists we consulted indicated that under the best possible circumstances, the experiments could only yield a statement about probabilities. That is, there was no way, in their judgment, to prove scientifically that Commission exhibit 399 could not have inflicted the damage attributed to it by the Warren Commission.
The most such tests could establish is that such a series of events, that is, the wounding of both President Kennedy and Governor Connally, could have occurred, not that they actually did not occur. Consequently, the test could only raise a question about probabilities, something we already knew. The tests could not answer the question that everybody wants to have answered, can you prove or unequivocally disprove what happened in Dealey Plaza?
Mr. Sturdivan, who will be our next witness, received an M.S. degree in statistics from the University of Delaware in 1971 and a B.S. degree in physics from Oklahoma State University in 1961. He has studied mathematics and computer sciences at the Ballistics Institute of the Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Md., and he has been a physical scientist with the Wounds Ballistics Branch of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Vulnerability Laboratory since 1964.
Mr. Sturdivan is the author of numerous professional articles and he is a frequent consultant in wound ballistics for such agencies as the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration and the Department of Justice as well as NATO.
Mr. Chairman, it would perhaps be appropriate for me to note now, for those who will follow carefully Mr. Sturdivan's testimony, that during that testimony, certain films will be shown. Those films involve the shooting of live and anesthetized goats. The Army, who prepared the films, has asked the committee to indicate to those-who watch them that these experiments are not now being conducted. It also suggested, and I think perhaps rightly, that those who might be of delicate sensibility or small children should not watch these films.
Mr. Chairman, it would be appropriate now to call Mr. Sturdivan.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Mr. Sturdivan.
Would you raise your right hand and be sworn? Do you swear the testimony you give before this committee is the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. STURDIVAN. I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you, you may be seated.

Chairman STOKES. The committee will come to order. This Chair recognizes Professor Blakey.
Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the testimony now to be taken concerns forensic firearms identification--the science of identifying fired bullets and cartridge cases with particular firearms. But first, some background information will be helpful. Soon after the assassination, Dallas police suspected the shots originated at the Texas School Book Depository. At 1:13 p.m. central standard time Deputy Sheriff Luke Mooney discovered three used cartridge cases lying on the floor near the southeast corner window of the sixth story. The cartridge cases were later turned over to the FBI.
At 1:22 p.m. Deputy Sheriff Eugene Boone and Deputy Constable Seymour Weitzman discovered a bolt-action rifle equipped with a telescopic sight. It was also on the floor of the sixth story of the book depository, near the northwest corner. Weitzman--though neither he nor Boone actually handled the rifle--described it as a 7.65 German Mauser, although it was subsequently determined to be a 6.5 millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano Italian military rifle. It contained one round, a full copper-jacketed military-type bullet manufactured by Western Cartridge Co.
As the officers were collecting assassination evidence in the Book Depository, Officer J.D. Tippit was shot and killed in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas, several miles away from the Book Depository. Four spent .38-caliber cartridges were found at the scene of the Tippit murder.
Before 2 p.m., Lee Harvey Oswald was arrested as a suspect, not in the President's assassination, but in the Tippit shooting.
He was apprehended after a scuffle in the Texas Theater, and he was carrying already a .38 Smith & Wesson special designed to fire .38 Smith & Wesson ammunition. Although the revolver had been rechambered to fire .38 special ammunition, it had not been rebarreled.
At approximately 1:55 p.m., a bullet was found on a stretcher in the emergency area of Parkland Hospital. O.P. Wright, Director of Security, was notified, and he turned the bullet over to Secret Service agents. It was the one the Warren Commission was later to label exhibit 399.
Other evidence that was recovered in the aftermath of the assassination included missile fragments from the Presidential limousine, fragments from Governor Connally's wrist, and fragments from the President's body. In addition, a bullet that had been recovered in an attempted assault on Gen. Edwin A. Walker in Dallas on April 10, 1963, would become the subject of evidentiary significance in the assassination.
The Warren Commission relied on FBI facilities for firearms identification of the missiles and fragments. [Firearms indentification, of course, is the process in which missiles and fragments are examined for characteristics that precisely identify the weapon from which they were fired.] The Commission concluded from the FBI tests that CE-399, and the two fragments found in the limousine that were large enough to test reliably, had been fired by the Mannlicher-Carcano retrieved from the Texas School Book Depository. It also determined that the three cartridge cases found in the Book Depository had been ejected from the chamber of the Mannlicher-Carcano. The FBI was unable, however, to link the bullet fired at General Walker with the rifle, though it said the badly mutiliated bullet showed the characteristics of a round that had been fired by a Mannlicher-Carcano.
As for the evidence in the Tippit shooting, the bullets removed from the officer's body could not be linked to Oswald's revolver. This was attributed to the erratic bullet behavior caused by rechambering. The empty cartridge cases found near Tippit's body were never the less connected to Oswald's revolver.
The critics have used the ballistic evidence to cast doubt on the Warren Commission conclusions. Edward Jay Epstien, for example, in his book Inquest, contends that there remained in Governor Connally's body more bullet fragments than could have been left by CE-399. Many critics, for that matter, have maintained as the testimony has shown in these hearings, that CE-399 could not have remained virtually intact after causing the many severe wounds the Governor received.
To conduct a comprehensive scientific examination of the firearms evidence, the committee chose a panel of experts who had no prior affiliation with the case. The panel was charged with resolving the following issues:
1. The character and characteristics of the evidence--the Mannlicher-Carcano retrieved from the Book Depository, the .38 revolver allegedly found in Oswald's possession, and missiles and fragments that have been associated with the assassination.
2. The possibility that a 6.5-millimeter Mannlicher-Carcano could easily or not be mistaken for a 7.65 German Mauser.
3. Whether the cartridge cases found on the floor of the sixth story of the Texas School Book Depository, the bullet found at Parkland Hospital and the fragments removed from Governor Connally, the limousine and the President's body can be connected to the Mannlicher-Carcano.
4. A number of related issues raised by critics, for example, was the scope on the Mannlicher-Carcano mounted for a left-handed marksman?
Members of the Firearms panel on hand today are: Mr. Monty C. Lutz, Mr. Donald E. Champagne, Mr. John S. Bates, Jr., and Mr. Andrew M. Newquist.
Mr. Lutz holds a B.S. degree in criminal justice from the University of Nebraska. He presently is a firearms and tool mark analyst with the Wisconsin Regional Crime Laboratory, New Berlin, Wis.
Mr. Champagne is presently a firearms and tool mark examiner with the Florida Department of Criminal Law Enforcement in Tallahassee. He previously served for 15 years as a firearms and tool mark examiner in the Crime Detection Laboratory in Ottawa, Ontario.
Mr. Bates is the senior firearms examiner in the New York State Police Laboratory at Albany. He has been a lecturer at the State University of New York at Albany, the New York Police Academy and the New York State Municipal Police Training Council.
Mr. Newquist is a special agent and firearm, tool mark and latent fingerprint examiner for the Iowa Bureau of Criminal Investigation. He is a member and a past president of the Association of Firearm and Tool Examiners, and he currently is on its executive committee.
Serving as technical assistant to the firearms panel is Mr. George R. Wilson. Through his assistance, the facilities at the Metropolitan Police Department Firearms Laboratory here in the District of Columbia were secured. His expertise in the area of firearms identification greatly assisted the panel's conduct of its inquiry.
It would be appropriate Mr. Chairman, at this time to call the panel as a whole.
Chairman STOKES. The committee at this time calls the panel forward. Would each of you gentlemen raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. BLAKEY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, there have been several prior attempts to analyze missiles and fragments recovered from the assassination from the standpoint of their me-
tallic makeup to determine, for one possibility, if they have a common origin.
In November and December 1963 the FBI applied to the evidence samples a technique called emission spectography. It is a process in which the samples are subjected to intense heat and their metallic composition is determined by the color of the gas that is then emitted. Emission spectography, however, is not highly sensitive and the tests were deemed by the FBI inconclusive.
In May 1964 the FBI also performed neutron activation analysis on some of the samples. That is a nuclear method to determine the elements present. An analysis of trace elements found in the sample of similar materials--for example, bullet lead--enables a highly trained scientist to come to a conclusion as to the probability of the samples having a common origin.
Nevertheless, "inconclusive" was also the term used by the FBI to describe its neutron activation analysis. The report it submitted to the Warren Commission stated that the tests would not, quote, "permit positively differentiating among the larger bullet fragments and thus positively determining from which of the larger bullet fragments any given small lead fragment may have come," unquote.
The Warren Commission did not divulge that the neutron activation analysis had taken place in its final report. Indeed the fact did not become public until the early 1970's.
Hopeful that new tests might succeed where old efforts had failed, the committee engaged as a consultant Dr. Vincent P. Guinn, professor of chemistry at the University of California at Irvine. Dr. Guinn had no relation to the Warren Commission. Dr. Guinn analyzed the assassination evidence samples as well as the bullet allegedly fired at General Walker.
In his experiments, Dr. Guinn used a high resolution lithium drifted germanium detector, a device that is far more sensitive, and hopefully accurate, than the one used for the FBI test in 1964.
Dr. Guinn received an M.B. and an M.S. degree in chemistry from the University of Southern California in 1939 and 1941 and a Ph.D. in physical chemistry from Harvard University in 1949. Dr. Guinn studied radioisotopes at the Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies, Oak Ridge, Tenn., in 1952. He is a fellow of the American Nuclear Society, the American Academy of Forensic Scientists, and he is a member of the American Chemical Society.
Dr. Guinn has published numerous scientific articles in the area of activation analysis and forensic chemistry. He has served as an adviser to such agencies as the Atomic Energy Commission and he has made a training film on neutron activation analysis which is in wide use today.
It would be appropriate, Mr. Chairman, at this time to call Dr. Guinn.
Chairman STOKES. The committee calls Dr. Guinn.
Sir, would you please stand and raise your right hand and be sworn.
Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give before this committee is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Dr. GUINN. Yes, I do.
Chairman STOKES. Thank you. You may be seated. The Chair recognizes committee counsel Jim Wolf.